{
  "id": 2703108,
  "name": "A. Wain Westfall, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ethel C. Westfall, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Westfall v. Westfall",
  "decision_date": "1975-01-30",
  "docket_number": "No. 74-230",
  "first_page": "824",
  "last_page": "825",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "25 Ill. App. 3d 824"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 141,
    "char_count": 1724,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.718,
    "sha256": "b1c629e000e6c6e5c91a3eb42b3cfbf974f38cce263fc589f44830d55d958b76",
    "simhash": "1:c88b5624327e0bb1",
    "word_count": 276
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:50:56.200740+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. Wain Westfall, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ethel C. Westfall, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE GEORGE MORAN\ndelivered the opinion, of the court:\nThis is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court of St. Clair County denying plaintiff-appellant\u2019s petition for cancellation or substantial modification of alimony payments appellant was ordered to pay his wife by a former divorce decree.\nAppellee was awarded a divorce from appellant on her counterclaim on June 26, 1973, which provided for a division, of the property and $500-per-month alimony to appellee. Appellant filed an appeal which was later dismissed by this court. Thereafter, appellant filed a petition to modify the decree, asking that the alimony payment be cancelled completely or reduced substantially. The same trial judge who granted the divorce reduced the alimony payment from $500 per month to $400 per month.\nAppellant contends that the trial court\u2019s refusal to cancel the alimony payment or reduce it substantially was against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nThe only issue in this case is whether the judgment of the trial court was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We find that the judgment of the trial court was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, that no error of law appears and that an opinion in this case would have no precedential value.\nWe therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court in compliance with Supreme Court Rule 23 ( 50 Ill.2d R. 23).\nJudgment affirmed.\nEBERSPACHER and CARTER, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE GEORGE MORAN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Sprague, Sprague and Ysursa, of Belleville (John R. Sprague and John R. Sprague, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Sam S. Pessin, of Belleville, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. Wain Westfall, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ethel C. Westfall, Defendant-Appellee.\n(No. 74-230;\nFifth District\nJanuary 30, 1975.\nSprague, Sprague and Ysursa, of Belleville (John R. Sprague and John R. Sprague, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.\nSam S. Pessin, of Belleville, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0824-01",
  "first_page_order": 848,
  "last_page_order": 849
}